Barterer, I don’t know if I got your doubts right… but let me try to explain how Dwarfs’ Gates work.

-The Dwarf’s Gate in Khnum is an entry to the underground caves (it has 2 red arrows in it). Being so; from Khnum (region) you can assault and conquer ‘Khnum’s entry gate’ and then assault ‘Damkianna’s gate’; from Damkianna (region) you CAN’T assault ‘Damkianna’s gate’ but you can be assaulted by it. The Gates (not the entries) have a one-way assault capability.Also, you gain a bonus for holding an entry and a gate or a group of gates.

-I’ll keep your concerns about Raider’s Haven on mind….

-The ‘Tower Of Control’ starts with 3 neutral because it doesn’t have an auto-deploy bonus attached to it. The others do have (Elven town, Tower Of Doom and the Raider’s Haven), so it makes some sense to raise those neuts a bit.

- Actually they do worth the same in the end… Elves will also get those +2 but in a different way – 1 in free deploy and 1 in auto-deploy. Because those are different races I wanted them to have different attributes.

-Logoth only gives a +1 bonus, I’ve adjusted it in the last versions already . Those neutral troops in NL are there to prevent an easy bonus for someone having a lucky drop.

Cairnswk, thanks a lot! This map was 95% drawn by me directly on the PC… So I’ve got a special feeling for every little curve there, especially the Raider’s Haven skull I’ll start working on the small version now. (P.S. – yes, those are trees and do represent a forest)

Danyael, thanks. I’ll keep that in mind – reducing the legend. As for the cut-off border, that’s a personal thing I guess, I do prefer to avoid the obvious which would be keeping all inside that frame….

Helix, thanks for the support – I’m totally available to make a font style change there (as long as it has that manuscript look). I just couldn’t find one that I like more than this. Open to suggestions though…

Kabanellas wrote:-The ‘Tower Of Control’ starts with 3 neutral because it doesn’t have an auto-deploy bonus attached to it. The others do have (Elven town, Tower Of Doom and the Raider’s Haven), so it makes some sense to raise those neuts a bit. Well why not give it an autodeploy. My point is that "the tower of control" deserves a high auto deploy, and therefore high naturalsCaptainwalrus - I’ll try to sort something out… (those Dwarf Runes in the top do say something )Ohh, what does it say?

Kabanellas wrote:Danyael, thanks. I’ll keep that in mind – reducing the legend. As for the cut-off border, that’s a personal thing I guess, I do prefer to avoid the obvious which would be keeping all inside that frame….

i like the way you like think but if you make it cut off nice like you did by the radier's haven (close to the land graphics)at the other places i.e near the kaball this will improve the look of it 10 foldas well where it cuts off near the bottom left cornerbut i do agree its a personal preference

3) legend, Dwarf's gateway:"one way assault exterior regions" unclear: one way in 2 directions ?Assume I have "Grut" can I then choose between one way assault Anshar and Ralaq-marshan ?If one way all the way (clockwise, anticlockwise) then indicate with arrows on the map.

4) All lagoths ---> Both Lagoths

5) legend: Ports all connect to Hellnor.But does Hellnor return connect to all ports ?

6) Legend Skull port of Raiders HAven:"can"one way assault..---> leave out the "can"; one way assault all ports

7) one raider boat on map moves TOWARDS the Raiders Haven skull.Not consistent with its one way assault direction.; flip the vessel

8.) make the bridges a bit wider/cleareror mention them/function in the legend.And in legend : thick bush around logoth are unpassable (example)

I liked Hobbiton and Bilbo Hand... seem to match the font in the maps drawn by Tolkien... but I can see how its a bit hard. Perhaps increasing the size of the current font might help (I know you're pressed for room, but you might be able to get away with it).

First of all, the general style of your map looks great. It gives of a good feeling for what you're shooting for. Based on the looks alone, I would play it.

On the other hand, there is a lot going on. I'm affraid it won't be easy at all to understand your map. There are 17 different symbols on your map, 4 different types of impassables, 3 different types of special connections, plus some decorations. Looking at your map alone, I have no idea what's going on. If I look at your legend, to the bottom left, I'm still confused, as that legend doesn't tell me what each symbol does. The legend on the bottom right does tell me what each symbol does, but it doesn't make a connection to what each symbol represents, making things difficult to understand. Your map looks extremely complicated, and only after careful study do I get a feeling of what everything does.

Is it possible to simplify? Personally, I would drop the island, Raiders Haven, all harbours, the two towers, the receptacles and (possibly) the raiders. This would allow you to focus on the different races, which each could (should?) be unique.

On another note, is it really necessary to change the name of the orcs? True, the word originated from tolkien, but it has become a staple in modern fantasy, comparable to elves and dwarves. Are you sure it's copyrighted? And what about goblin as an alternative?

Finally, even though the runes do translate into a poem, there are very few people familiar enough with tolkien's runes to translate it. I think it would be better if it is actually readable for the majority of people.

Sorry for the large amount of complaining. Your map does look like it has a lot of potential.

3) legend, Dwarf's gateway:"one way assault exterior regions" unclear: one way in 2 directions ?Assume I have "Grut" can I then choose between one way assault Anshar and Ralaq-marshan ?If one way all the way (clockwise, anticlockwise) then indicate with arrows on the map.

4) All lagoths ---> Both Lagoths

5) legend: Ports all connect to Hellnor.But does Hellnor return connect to all ports ?

6) Legend Skull port of Raiders HAven:"can"one way assault..---> leave out the "can"; one way assault all ports

7) one raider boat on map moves TOWARDS the Raiders Haven skull.Not consistent with its one way assault direction.; flip the vessel

8.) make the bridges a bit wider/cleareror mention them/function in the legend.And in legend : thick bush around logoth are unpassable (example)

must go now.cheers

Thanks oddball for the comments, I’ll try to answer all your questions:

1) All 5 human villages worth the same and can be paired with horsemen training ground or warrior training ground.2) I’ll try to fit something more there…3) I’ve explained in pg 2 how Dwarf gates work. (if you own Grut, first you’ll have to assault ‘Grut’s Gate Entry’ then assault ‘Ralaq-marsan’s Gate’, and the you can assault Ralaq-marsan. But from Ralaq-marsan you won’t be able to assault ‘Ralaq-marsan’s Gate’)4) I’ll try to fit the word Both instead of All 5) Actually I haven’t decided that yet………..6) Well… I could do that – one way assault all ports 7) The 2 boats are there to give some dynamic to that area – and pirates/raiders do have to return after making some raids8 )8) I think that naming them bridges is quite enough to refer to their function….

Helix, thanks a lot! I’ve been checking those fonts and there’s lots of juicy stuff there. I’ll try them for sure.

MichelSableheart thanks for commenting!

MichelSableheart wrote:..Is it possible to simplify? Personally, I would drop the island, Raiders Haven, all harbours, the two towers, the receptacles and (possibly) the raiders. This would allow you to focus on the different races, which each could (should?) be unique.

I couldn't have a Tolkien's Middle Earth based map without having The Two Towers (definitely), the Lost Island represents Valar (also needed), The Raiders Haven are the Pirates that haunted Middle Earth and do spice things a bit in the board game.

MichelSableheart wrote:...On another note, is it really necessary to change the name of the orcs? True, the word originated from tolkien, but it has become a staple in modern fantasy, comparable to elves and dwarves. Are you sure it's copyrighted? And what about goblin as an alternative?

Finally, even though the runes do translate into a poem, there are very few people familiar enough with tolkien's runes to translate it. I think it would be better if it is actually readable for the majority of people.

Sorry for the large amount of complaining. Your map does look like it has a lot of potential.

Well, actually Elves and Dwarfs have been used in common mythology for centuries, specially in Scandinavian’s mythology. They’re definitely nobody's intellectual property.

The word ORC comes from the latin word Orcus (one of the names of God Pluto – The Lord Of The Underworld). But the meaning that we now give to the word was introduced by Tolkien himself. Therefore to avoid copyright issues we should stick to the word Gorks.

as for the runes... I like them for the looks, for how they graphically enrich the map, not for their meaning... though they have a meaning.

I couldn't have a Tolkien's Middle Earth based map without having The Two Towers (definitely), the Lost Island represents Valar (also needed), The Raiders Haven are the Pirates that haunted Middle Earth and do spice things a bit in the board game.

What time period are you shooting for? The two towers were only truly relevant during the war of the ring, IIRC. Valar and Numenor OTOH weren't important during the war of the ring. And I don't remember pirates being significant in either the Silmarillion, the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.

I think you're making a huge misjudgement about how complex the map is, and I strongly belief you need to simplify. If you insist on keeping everything in, perhaps you should make things more uniform.

For example, I think it would be better if you created a "special location" symbol. Place it on the tower of doom, tower of control and the house of gods. All of them function as a simple +1 autodeploy; don't mess around with bombardment or receptacles. This keeps them on the map while also reducing the complexity.

Similary, I think you should uniformize the races that have a symbol on the map. In other words:

The following combinations give a +1 bonus:

elven town + elven training ground;

Human village + warriors training ground;

Human village + horsemen training ground;

Gorks camp + Gorks training ground;

Raiders inn + Raiders training ground;

Dark elf village + Dark elf training ground.

That way, even though there are a lot of symbols on the map, most of them work the same. Furthermore, you lose the odd "hold all logoths for a +1" which was different from everything else on the map.

To make the ports more easily understood, you could draw connections between them. For example, Mishyelly (sp? can't read it) connects to Akherat; Akherat connects to Hellnor, Hellnor connects to Tehl. Or you should let all ports connect to each other. They definately should all function the same, rather then Hellnor being different.

I don't see why the one way attacks from Norhtern Logoth are necessary. Again, they are something not found anywhere else on the map, adding to complexity for little gain. Can't you just make it connect to 1 or 2 territories, just like southern Logoth?

Also, in a lot of places, you use forests as decoration, but aroung the Logoths you use them as impassables. Perhaps you should remove the decorative forests to reduce the possible confusion with either impassable forests or the Gorks camps?

Finally, I think you make an unneccesary distinction between dwarg gateway entries and dwarf gateways. I think it would be easier to understand as those all functioned teh same: as countries inside countries that are connected to each other. If you do this, you may want to move them to avoid having them connect coutnries that are next to each other.

Thanks Sync! The map is nooot that complex... I think that in a second approach people will get the feeling of it. And after all.. Tolkien's world was complex.

I'm affraid players won't take that second approach.When they see a lot of symbols on the map, quite a few will go "that's complex, I'll look for something easier". And quite a lot of those willing to put in the effort of reading the legend, will leave after that because the legend isn't easily understandable either.

The word ORC comes from the latin word Orcus (one of the names of God Pluto – The Lord Of The Underworld). But the meaning that we now give to the word was introduced by Tolkien himself. Therefore to avoid copyright issues we should stick to the word Gorks.

I know that this meaning was introduced by Tolkien. But he isn't the only one to use it. Warcraft, Warhammer, D&D and Magic the Gathering, to name a few of the top of my head, all use orcs. They've become just as staple a part of fantasy as elves and dwarves, IMO.

There are simple and there are complex maps available. Some players like simple ones and some love complex.

But both of them have chance for the existence. If the complexity of the map is the issue for you Michel, then maybe you wouldn't play it?

I see that you have played only 5 games on 4 unique maps at all. Not sure, why would you request to simplify it at all? Why don't you give a try to Waterloo map or Poison Rome first, then call this map complex.

I am sorry Michel, not to sound disrespectful, but I don't think you are qualified to talk about the "complexity" of any of maps at all.

Anyway Michel, this map is obviously focusing on ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ era in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. As you may know, if you are a Tolkien’s fan, all his worlds from Beleriand to Eriador are full of little features, secrets and mystic powers, and ALL races have different attributes. Again, I wouldn’t be making (MY) Tolkien’s based map game if I was making it like a flat, classic, risk board game.

(btw, Valar is present in every era described by Tolkien – remember that in the end of the LOTR, the Elves sailed back home, to Valar) (also, Valar here, represents the basic philosophy subjacent in all Tolkien’s tales – Good Vs Evil – House of Gods Vs Tower of Doom)

The changes you’re asking for would just destroy all that, both me and Andrew, are trying to achieve here.

I’d very much like your opinions IF they’re not destructive and as long as they're based on this project, with the complexity it deserves.

K

Last edited by Kabanellas on Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

go a head and keep gork but orc won't infringe on any copyrightsgork is a slang word used in medical terms for terminal patients that have a non functioning brain but can be kept alive thru medical devices and liquids

as orcs are not the brightest creature in the world I'm pretty sure they are no gork but i thought you would like to know this fun fact

Orcs was a common word used for a number of different creatures, some of them varieties of trolls......The use of hobbit-like creatures called halflings is not a copyright violation, since such things exist in mythology and you are not necessarily exploiting LOTR any more than anything else. But if you use the word hobbit, which was created for LOTR, and the creature is similar to Tolkein's hobbits, then you're violating copyright. But orcs, being a mythological creature subject to many interpretations, is free range.

I'm waiting on the Foundry Mods to comment on this first, before I take a move.

MichelSableheart wrote:What time period are you shooting for? The two towers were only truly relevant during the war of the ring, IIRC. Valar and Numenor OTOH weren't important during the war of the ring. And I don't remember pirates being significant in either the Silmarillion, the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.

I think you're making a huge misjudgement about how complex the map is, and I strongly belief you need to simplify. If you insist on keeping everything in, perhaps you should make things more uniform.

Woops a LOTRspecialist there ...

my 2 cents here:To me (not deep into LOTR) I find it not too complicated. There are some other (my interest WW2 maps) maps that have the same if not worse complexity.It always requires 2 plays to understand the map fully.So that is not an issue.

For me you can keep pirates and combination of different LOTR era's..that is to the discretion of the mapmaker.A few of the WW2 maps have elements in them of generals/units/province names from different moments in time.That never bothered any of the commentators or players .

The basis/concept of the map is good..it only requires clarifications here and there.

AndrewB wrote:There are simple and there are complex maps available. Some players like simple ones and some love complex.

But both of them have chance for the existence. If the complexity of the map is the issue for you Michel, then maybe you wouldn't play it?

I see that you have played only 5 games on 4 unique maps at all. Not sure, why would you request to simplify it at all? Why don't you give a try to Waterloo map or Poison Rome first, then call this map complex.

I am sorry Michel, not to sound disrespectful, but I don't think you are qualified to talk about the "complexity" of any of maps at all.

My main concern is not the complexity from a gameplay perspective. My main concern is the complexity from a "just looking at the map" perspective. My main Point of View is that of a player who looks at this map for the first time, and is trying to determine if he wants to play this map. What I am worried about is that, due to the large number of different things going on, he will not be able to figure out how it works, and will therefore look for a different map.

As a new player, I've looked at a lot of maps for the first time recently. I remember very few maps that require you to understand as many different symbols as this map does, and none were each of those symbols worked differently. (Both Waterloo and Poison Rome, though complex in gameplay, have far less symbols to grasp then this map does. Besides that, neither of them have territories that do something that isn't done anywhere else on the map, whereas this map has four: tower of control, hous of gods, raider's haven and north logoth.)

I belief that, with my suggestions, I remained well within the spirit of tolkien mentioned in the original post. If it is your intention to create a detailed reconstruction of Middle Earth, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

The problem of the use of the word Ork (or Gork) is that this term was "coined" by Tolkien.However, Tolkien used a term that already exists and adapting it to their needs and creating a characters with fantastic features. But you don't have a picture/drawning of a Ork but only a name, so it's a different problem.

Anyway, It seems that ork isn't copyrighted, so you can use this word.

We have indications of the term ork in the oldest writings in the greek-roman mythology, Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, in the Legend of Beowulf and many other fairy tales or stories of the past. (in some Ogre istead of Ork)However, i think that your map contains explicit references to the Tolkien's work, causing an immediate connection between the word ork (ogre) and the Tolkien's ork.This could be a problem,It would like to use the term Hobbit on the map, a term created by Tolkien and copyrighted.But I am not of the opinion that the best solution is to delete the term Ork/Gork and replacing it with a more generic word like ogre.I think that you should work on other elements in the map far more worrisome for the directy connection with Tolkien.(The Two Towers, The Mount Doom).I am in favour to suggest you to keep the term Gork (Ork/Ogre) but to remove/modify the connections to Tolkien (eg rename Mount doom , maybe Plains of doom ) and try to create an original world of fantasy without lose that magical feeling that the stories of Tolkien have.

I think you're able to do that

Have a nice daythenobodies80

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

Well... there was a Mount Doom in Tolkien’s work if I remember right. In here we have the Mountains of Doom. I could think of another name that brings the same feeling…but coming to think of it, the name/term 'Mountains of Doom' is widely used, even referring to the Everest. Should it be really a problem?

And should we use the word Ork, instead of Gork? That would be great.

Meanwhile, I’ve been testing some new fonts, some of them suggested by Helix.

In Test 3, I’ve used in the south one font called ‘The Ring Bearer’, in the West (human territories) I’ve used one called Papyrus. In the rest you still can see the old font. I’ve also changed the font style in the legend.Which one do you prefer?

ok i like the tel amon font it does match the ink map lookbut at the same time I like the font on mount doom it matches the map lookbut it also looks better for clarity reasons(personal opinion) but i'd say one of thosebut if you increase the size a touch or 2 the tel amon font would be great 9might not fit in doom areaon a side note you cursive font in the legend is nice but the smaller text is hard to see

Kabanellas wrote:Well... there was a Mount Doom in Tolkien’s work if I remember right. In here we have the Mountains of Doom. I could think of another name that brings the same feeling…but coming to think of it, the name/term 'Mountains of Doom' is widely used, even referring to the Everest. Should it be really a problem?

as it not as simple as cut and pasteor proving orc or ork is not copyrightnames like(mount doom) those trend to be trademarked and some copyright lawsbetter safe then sorry and coming up with a different name